Sunday, January 31, 2016

Sen. Ted Cruz vs. Donald Trump: 6th GOP Debate


Sen. Rafael Edward 'Ted' Cruz
vs.
Donald J. Trump

Obfuscation
vs.
Original Genesis Original Intent Common Sense


At the 6th GOP debate on January 14, 2016, Senator Ted Cruz cited an "extreme" birther theory and concludes that Donald Trump is also not a "natural born Citizen" and also not eligible to be POTUS if Sen. Cruz, Sen. Rubio and Gov. Jindal are not eligible.

Let's start with the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "obfuscation."

obfuscation n.
obfuscate v.
obfuscatory adj.

1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand.
2. To render indistinct or dim; darken.


Transcript from the Sixth Republican Debate
January 14, 2016

Here is my 7 min. 30 sec. transcript of the Cruz and Trump exchange from the January 14, 2016 Republican debate.

The transcript starts a little after 28m:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeqe_XKWs3o

The transcript starts at about 23 minutes:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPpWwcmpvH4

This 8 min video with transcript is from RealClearPositics.com:
>> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/01/14/cruz_vs_trump_over_natural_birth_under_your_theory_you_would_be_disqualified_from_running_for_president.html

Neal Cavuto:
I'll start with you Senator Cruz.

Now, you are, of course, a strict constitutionalist, no one would doubt that. And, as you know, the U.S. Constitution says only natural born citizens are eligible for the office of president of the United States.

Stop me if you've heard this before.

Now. You were born [mild and friendly laughter], you were born in Canada to an American mother, so you were and are considered an American citizen. But, that fellow next to you, Donald Trump, and others, have said that being born in Canada means you are not natural born, and that has raised questions about your eligibility.

Do you want to try to close this topic once and for all tonight?

Senator Ted Cruz:
Hah. Well, Neil, I'm glad we are focusing on the important topics of the evening [friendly laughter and applause].

You know, back in September, my friend Donald said he'd had his lawyers look at this from every which way and there was no issue there. There was nothing to this birther issue [friendly laughter and applause]. Now, since September the Constitution hasn't changed [friendly laughter and applause and guffaws] but the poll numbers have [friendly and loud voices and applause]. And, I recognize, I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa.

But, the facts and the law here are really quite clear. Under longstanding U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad [ed. the child is the one born abroad] is a natural born citizen. If a soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural born citizen. That's why John McCain, even though he was born in Panama, was eligible to run for president. If an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural born citizen. That's why George Romney, Mitt's dad, was eligible to run for president even though he was born in Mexico.

At the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward. But, I would note the birther theories that Donald has been relying on. Some of the more extreme ones insist you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil. Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified, but interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified [friendly loud and long laughter and applause].

Donald Trump:
Not me.

Cruz:
Because, because Donald's mother was born in Scotland, she was naturalized.

Now, Donald.

Trump:
But I was born here.

Cruz:
On the issue of citizenship, Donald.

Trump:
A big difference.

Cruz:
On the issue of citizenship, Donald, I'm not going to use your mother's birth against you.

Trump:
Good, because it wouldn't work.

Cruz:
You're an American as is everybody else on this stage, and I would suggest we focus on whose best prepared to be Commander-in-Chief, because that's the most important question facing the country [friendly loud applause].

Cavuto:
Mr. Trump. Did you address that? Did you raise that because of his rising poll numbers?

Trump:
Let me just tell you something, and you know because you just saw the numbers yourself. NBC, Wall Street Journal just came out with a poll [unfriendly audience boos] headlined Trump way up, Cruz going down. I mean [unfriendly audience noise], so you can't [noise continues], they don't like the Wall Street Journal, they don't like NBC, but I like the poll [unfriendly audience noise continues], and frankly, it just came out, and, in Iowa now, as you know Ted, in the last three polls, I'm beating you. So you know, you shouldn't misrepresent how well you're doing with the polls. You don't have to say that. In fact, I was all for you until you started doing that, because that's a misrepresentation, number one.

Number two. This isn't me saying it. I don't care. I think I'm going to win fair and square. I don't have to win this way [friendly mild audience applause]. Thank you.

Laurence Tribe, from Harvard, of Harvard, said that there is a serious question as to whether or not Ted can do this. Ok? There are other attorneys that feel, and very, very fine constitutional attorneys, that feel that because he was not born on the land, he cannot run for office.

Here's the problem. We're running, we're running, he does great, I win, I choose him as my vice presidential candidate and the Democrats sue because we can't take him along for the ride. I don't like that. Ok?

The fact is, and if for some reason he beats the rest of the field [unfriendly audience boos], he beats the rest of the field [unfriendly noise continues], see, they don't like that. They don't like that. No, they don't like that he beats the rest of the field because they want me [friendly and loud voices and applause]. But, if for some reason he beats the rest of the field, I already know the Democrats are going to be bringing a suit. You have a big lawsuit over your head while you're running, and you become the nominee, who the hell knows if you can even serve in office?

So, you should go out, get a declaratory judgment, let the courts decide. And, you shouldn't have mentioned the polls because I wouldn't have been much different.

Cavuto:
Why now? Why are you raising this issue now?

Trump:
Because now he's doing a little bit better [loud audience voices and applause]. I didn't care before [noise continues]. No, it's true. Hey, look. He never had a chance. Now he's doing better. He's got probably a four or five percent chance [Cruz smiles, audience laughter].

Cavuto:
Thank you, Mr. Trump.

Trump:
The fact is, there is a big overhang. There's a big question mark on your head, and you can't do that to the Party. You really can't do that to the party. You have to have certainty. Even if it was a one percent; and it's far greater than one percent 'cause he wasn't born. I mean, you have great constitutional lawyers who say you can't run. I'm not bringing a suit, I promise, but the Democrats are going to bring a lawsuit, and you can't. You have to have certainty. You can't have a question. I can agree with you, or not, but you can't have a question over your head [unfriendly audience voices].

Cavuto:
Senator, do you want to respond?

Cruz:
Well, listen, I've spent my entire life defending the Constitution before the U.S. Supreme Court, and I'll tell you, I'm not going to be taking legal advice from Donald Trump [friendly loud audience voice and applause].

Trump:
You don't have to. Take it from Laurence Tribe. Take it from your professor. Take it from your own professor.

Cruz:
The chances of any litigation proceedig and succeeding on this are zero.

Trump:
That's wrong.

Cruz:
And Mr. Trump is very focused on Larry Tribe. Let me tell you who Larry Tribe is. He's a left wing judicial activist Harvard Law professor who was Al Gore's lawyer in Bush vs. Gore. He's a major Hillary Clinton supporter, and there's a reason why Hillary's supporters are echoing Donald's attacks on me.

Trump:
He's not the only one.

Cruz:
Because Hillary wants to face Donald Trump in the general election.

Trump:
He's not the only one. There are many lawyers.

Cruz:
And, I'll tell you what Donald. You very kindly, just a moment ago, offered me the VP slot [Trump smiles, friendly audience voices and applause]. I'll tell you what. If this all works out, I'm happy to consider naming you as VP, and so, if you happen to be right, you could get the top job at the end of the day [friendly audience voices and applause].

Trump:
No [audience noise continues]. I like it. I'd consider it, but I think I'll go back to building building if it doesn't work out.

Cruz:
Actually, I'd like to get you to build the wall.

Trump:
I have the feeling it's going to work out, actually.

Cavuto:
Alright.

<<End of Transcript>>


In his response to Neil Cavuto Sen. Cruz obfuscated about "natural born" and tacitly avoided the "Citizen" issue when he said:

"... I would note the birther theories that Donald has been relying on. Some of the more extreme ones insist you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil."

"Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, ... but ... Donald J. Trump would be disqualified."

My Comment:

So, Sen. Cruz, WHAT are you saying and what are you NOT saying?

Sen. Cruz, you are accurate about what is "extreme": "the birther theories ... extreme ... be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil," so why do you not spell out what you think is NOT "extreme?"

Sen. Cruz, what "birther" theory are you relying on?

Sen. Cruz, are you relying on a "natural born Citizen" original genesis original intent theory, a.k.a. an "original birther" theory of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, or are you relying on a "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirther theory of ALSO / ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship?

Sen. Cruz, are you aware (yes, of course you are aware, you memorized the U.S. Constitution at age thirteen—this is a rhetorical question to get to a larger point) that "natural born Citizen" with the ONLY implication of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was a phrase that was inspired by "original birther" John Jay on July 25, 1787 when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his very good friend and also "original birther" George Washington, a suggestion that was accepted without debate by the 1787 "original birther" framers and then eventually by all of the "original birther" ratifiers of the several states, including it's author "original birther" John Jay, a New York state ratifier?

Or, Sen. Cruz, are you relying on a 2000s mythology, a 2000s theory of dual U.S./foreign citizenship inspired by "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who assert that ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient, to use your word, to "qualify" to be president, and who also assert that it does not matter where a "natural born Citizen" is born, on U.S. soil or foreign soil?

Sen. Cruz, if you do not agree that the ONLY implication of John Jay's underlined word "born" was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship to qualify to be "...eligible to the Office of President," you and other "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers need to adduce your sources who advocated for either ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship, or ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship. Here's a hint: ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship implies that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was also discussed.

Sen. Cruz, by obfuscating with the suggestion that there are many "birther theories" are you tacitly suggesting that there are "birther theories" that are NOT extreme? Are you saying that there are original genesis original intent "birther theories" that you do accept?

Sen. Cruz, by obfuscating about "birther theories" that are "extreme" are you tacitly suggesting that what is NOT "extreme" is that the child MUST be born on U.S. soil and that BOTH parents do NOT need to be born on U.S. soil, but, if both parents naturalize, they MUST naturalize as U.S. citizens BEFOE their child is born on U.S. soil?

That definitely is NOT extreme.
That IS "...eligible to the Office of President" common sense.

Sen. Cruz, by obfuscating about "birther theories" that are "extreme" are you tacitly suggesting that what is NOT "extreme" is that the child MUST be born on U.S. soil and that BOTH parents do NOT need to be born on U.S. soil, but, if one parent IS born on U.S. soil as a U.S. citizen and the other parent naturalizes, that the naturalized parent MUST naturalize as a U.S. citizens BEFOE their child is born on U.S. soil?

That definitely is NOT extreme.
That IS "...eligible to the Office of President" common sense.

Sen. Cruz, by obfuscating about "birther theories" that are "extreme" are you tacitly suggesting that what is NOT "extreme" is that the child does NOT need to be born on U.S. soil but that BOTH parents MUST be born on U.S. soil?

That definitely IS extreme.
That is NOT "...eligible to the Office of President" common sense.
The child DOES need to be born on U.S. soil, and the parents do NOT need to be born on U.S. soil.

Sen. Cruz, by obfuscating about "birther theories" that are "extreme" are you tacitly suggesting that what is NOT "extreme" is that the child does NOT need to be born on U.S. soil and that BOTH parents do NOT need to be born on U.S. soil?

That definitely IS extreme.
That is NOT "...eligible to the Office of President" common sense.
The child DOES need to be born on U.S. soil, and the parents do NOT need to be born on U.S. soil

Sen. Cruz, by obfuscating about "birther theories" that are "extreme" are you tacitly suggesting that what is NOT "extreme" is that the child does NOT need to be born on U.S. soil and that ONLY one parent DOES need to be born on U.S. soil?

That idefinitely IS extreme.
That is NOT "...eligible to the Office of President" common sense.
The child DOES need to be born on U.S. soil and two parents do NOT need to be born on U.S. soil.

Sen. Cruz, by obfuscating about "birther theories" that are "extreme" with your "extreme" example that definitely is extreme, what would you say is NOT "extreme" about citizenship, the heart of the issue about being a "natural born Citizen" that you avoided by adducing only the issue of soil of birth of the child and the soil of birth of one parent?

Here is a way to clarify what is NOT extreme about citizenship.

Is singular U.S. citizenship "extreme" relative to being "...eligible to the Office of President" or is singular U.S. citizenship NOT extreme?

Is dual U.S./foreign citizenship "extreme" relative to being "...eligible to the Office of President" or is dual U.S./foreign citizenship NOT extreme?

1 - Is ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "extreme?"
2 - Is ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship "extreme?"
3 - Is ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship "extreme?"

Sen. Cruz, is ONLY singular citizenship common sense?
Sen. Cruz, is ALSO dual citizenship common sense?
Sen. Cruz, is ONLY dual citizenship common sense?

Sen. Cruz, it is simple to state and simple to understand the common sense about being "from" birth and "by" birth a U.S. "citizen" who is a U.S. "natural born Citizen" who is "...eligible to the Office of President:

ONLY, by birth, singular U.S. citizenship.
ONLY by birth on U.S. soil/jurisdiction.
ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents.

<<>>

Mario Apuzzo had a short comment about the Cruz / Trump exchange on his Natural Born Citizen blog on January 15, 2016, the day after the debate.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-citizen-is-one-thing-but-natural-born.html?showComment=1452863855001#c6985378128834215493

>> Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

>> Leo,

>> Did you notice how Cruz attempted to dismiss the "birthers" as at least one state judge has done by arguing the "extreme" example, wherein he said that some birthers contend that the child's parents have to be born in the United States in order for their child born to them in the United States to be a natural born citizen.

>> He then followed that since Trump's mother was not born in the United States, Trump would not be a natural born citizen.

>> Cruz is a liar again like before, like he did not know that he was a citizen of Canada.

>> We know that parents do not have to be born in the United States. They only have to be U.S. citizens, either natural born citizens of the United States or citizens of the United States.

>> When Trump was born in the United States, both of his parents were U.S. citizens (his mother naturalized before Trump was born). His father was a natural born citizen and his mother was a citizen of the United States. That makes Trump a natural born citizen.

>> Trump should have set Cruz straight on his lies and distortions.

>> January 15, 2016 at 8:17 AM

<<>>

My Comment:

Notice "... the child's parents have to be born in the United States."

Sen. Cruz, if both parents must be born in the U.S. is an "extreme" example of what is NOT the original intent of Article II Section 1 clause 5, specifically the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," what do you say is NOT the "extreme" proposition? What do you say IS the 1787 original genesis original intent common sense?

Sen. Cruz, what are you proposing with the obfuscation, the "extreme" theory, about both "...parents have to be born in the United States" ?

1. Are you asserting that two married parents do NOT need to be born in the United States?
2. Are you asserting that ONLY one parent, married or not, must be born in the United States?
3. Are you asserting that zero parents, married or not, must be born in the United States?
4. Are you asserting that the child must have two U.S. citizen married parents?
5. Are you asserting that the child must have one U.S. citizen parent, married to the partner or not?
6. Are you asserting that the child can have zero U.S. citizen parents, married or not?

My Comment:

Notice "...either natural born citizens of the United States or citizens of the United States."

1. Some "citizens" are U.S. "natural born Citizens" ONLY "at" birth and ONLY "by" birth
2. Some "citizens" are U.S. "citizens" ONLY "at" birth and ONLY "by" statute
3. Some "citizens" are U.S. "citizens" ONLY "at" naturalization and ONLY "by" oath

A "Natural Born Citizen" is Determined ONLY by Natural Law and Positive Law

Since "natural law" (nature) can not be changed by "positive law" (statute), the U.S. Congress, the "positive law" law making body of the United States, determines the application of positive law (statute) as positive law is informed by natural law (nature).

The U.S. Congress of "WE the People" determines both the positive law of "when" and the natural law of "how" U.S. "natural born Citizen" status is acquired ONLY by children: (1) ONLY by children "at" birth by positive law (statute), AND (2) ONLY by children "by" birth by natural law (no statute can change "nature" and natural law birth).

A "Citizen" is Determined ONLY by Positive Law and Positive Law

The U.S. Congress of "WE the People" determines both the positive law of "when" and the positive law of "how" U.S. "citizen" status is acquired by BOTH children and adults: (1) ONLY by children "at" birth by positive law (statute), OR (2) ONLY by adults "by" oath by positive law (statute).

1. Some "citizens" are U.S. "natural born Citizens" ONLY "at" birth and ONLY "by" birth.

1a. Singular U.S. citizenship ONLY "at" birth = positive law.
1b. Singular U.S. citizenship ONLY "by" birth = natural law.

1a - "At" birth = positive law:
The U.S. Congress, the "positive law" law making body, determines the positive law of "when" U.S. natural born citizen status is acquired by the child — "at" birth. It must be from and "at" birth for "...eligible to the Office of President" at age 35 (to "attain" 35 years of age), and 14 years residency up to and including age 35 within the United States, to make sense.

1b - "By" birth = natural law:
The U.S. Congress, the "positive law" law making body, by the positive law of "when" U.S. natural born citizenship is acquired by the child, determined in 1787, in Article II Section 1 clause 5, that the congress of the parents, the "natural law" child maker bodies, is "when" and "how" singular U.S. citizenship is acquired by the child — "by" birth.

So, how is Article II Section 1 clause 5 U.S. "natural born Citizen" status acquired by the child for the child to be qualified to be "... eligible to the Office of President?"

ONLY, "by" birth, singular U.S. citizenship
ONLY, "by" birth, at the instant of birth, on U.S. soil
ONLY, "by" birth, two U.S. citizen married parents

<<>>

From 1787
Original Genesis Original Intent Common Sense About "Natural Born Citizen"

To 2016
New Meaning Neobirther "Extreme" Absurdity About "Natural Born Citizen"

Original Genesis Original Intent Common Sense
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child must be born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, both of whom can be born on U.S. soil as U.S. citizens, either "at" birth by positive law (statute) or "by" birth by natural law (nature), or both of whom can be naturalized U.S. citizens.

Since Sen. Cruz did not adduce other "birther theories" that are just as "extreme" as the absurd theory he adduced that the child must be born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizn parents who also must be born on U.S. soil for the child to qualify to be "...eligible to the Office of President," here are a few "extreme" and absurd "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirther theories that are contrary to the "natural born Citizen" original genesis original intent meaning.

See which theory fits Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Carley Fiorina, Rand Paul, Chris Cristie, Rick Santorum, or your favorite federal or state elected officials.

Extreme Absurdity #1
(the "must" word for both parents is so obvious and absurd)
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child must be born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, both of whom must be born on U.S. soil.

Extreme Absurdity #2
("one" parent and the "must" word for the parent is so obvious and absurd)
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can be born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent who must be born on U.S. soil.

Extreme Absurdity #3
("one" parent is absurd)
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can be born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent who can be born on U.S. soil.

Extreme Absurdity #4
("one" parent and the "must" word for the parent is so obvious and absurd)
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can be born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent who must be born on foreign soil.

Extreme Absurdity #5
("one" parent and the "can" word for the parent is so obvious and absurd)
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can be born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent who can be born on foreign soil.

Extreme Absurdity #6
("foreign soil" and "one" parent and the "must" word for the parent is so obvious and absurd)
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can be born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent who must be born on U.S. soil.

Extreme Absurdity #7
("foreign soil" and "one" parent is so obvious and absurd)
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can be born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent who can be born on U.S. soil.

Extreme Absurdity #8
("foreign soil" and "one" parent and the "must" word for the parent is so obvious and absurd)
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can be born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent who must be born on foreign soil.

Extreme Absurdity #9
("foreign soil" and "one" parent is so obvious and absurd)
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can be born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent who can be born on foreign soil.

Extreme Absurdity #10
("zero" parents and the "must" word is so obvious and absurd)
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can be born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, both of whom must be born on U.S. soil.

Extreme Absurdity #11
("zero" parents is so obvious and absurd)
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can be born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, both of whom can be born on U.S. soil.

Extreme Absurdity #12
("zero" parents and the "must" word is so obvious and absurd)
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can be born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, both of whom must be born on foreign soil.

Extreme Absurdity #13
(included because the "can" word is so obvious and absurd—except for the open borders crowd)
For a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can be born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, both of whom can be born on foreign soil.


Singular U.S. Citizenship
Original Genesis Original Intent
Common Sense

Common Sense #1
When a child is ONLY born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction and ONLY born to two U.S. citizen parents married only to each other, the child has ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

For a child to be a U.S. "natural born Citizen" with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship the child must ONLY be born on U.S. soil and ONLY born to two U.S. citizen parents married only to each other who were U.S. citizens BEFORE their child is born. It does NOT matter if both parents were born on U.S. soil as U.S. citizens "at" birth (positive law) OR "by" birth (natural law). It also does NOT matter if one OR both parents were naturalized (positive law) as U.S. citizens BEFORE (positive law) their child is born on U.S. soil.

Common Sense #2
When a child is born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents married only to each other, the child has by positive law (statute) and by natural law common sense (nature), ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, the child is a U.S. "natural born Citizen" because the child was born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Common Sense #3
When a child is born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent, married or not married to the partner, the child by positive law (statute) acquires the U.S. citizenship of one parent and the foreign citizenship of the other parent. The child has dual citizenship, not singular U.S. citizenship. The child is not a U.S. "natural born Citizen" because the child was not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Common Sense #4
When a child is born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, the child has, by positive law (statute), singular U.S. citizenship, but the child is not a U.S. "natural born Citizen" because the child was not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Common Sense #5
When a child is born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents, married or not married to each other, the child has by positive law (statute) singular U.S. citizenship, but the child is not a U.S. "natural born Citizen" because the child was not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Common Sense #6
When a child is born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent, married or not married to the partner, the child has by positive law (statute) singular U.S. citizenship, but the child is not a U.S. "natural born Citizen" because the child was not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Common Sense #7
When a child is born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, married or not married to each other, the child has by positive law (statute) and by natural law common sense (nature), foreign citizenship, and the child is not a U.S. "natural born Citizen" because the child was not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.

<<>>

In the sixth debate Sen. Cruz adduced the concept of birth on U.S. soil for both the child and the parents for the child to be qualified to be president, but in the debate or on the stump Sen. Cruz does not adduce the concepts of being a "citizen" or being a "natural born Citizen" according to the 1787 original genesis original intent meaning of Article II Section 1 clause 5. 

In his response to Neil Cavuto's question about the question of Sen. Cruz's eligibility and whether or not he was a "natural born Citizen" according to the Constitution, Sen. Cruz responded with obvious obfuscation by referring to a mythical "extreme" example that no informed or uninformed or misinformed constitutional scholar has ever espoused, and by citing the "extreme" example he did not need to refer to the original genesis original intent meaning of citizenship implied in "natural born Ctizen" in A2S1c5.

Consider some of the well rehearsed words by Sen. Cruz.

Neal Cavuto:
I'll start with you Senator Cruz.

Now, you are, of course, a strict constitutionalist, no one would doubt that. And, as you know, the U.S. Constitution says only natural born citizens are eligible for the office of president of the United States.

Senator Ted Cruz:
"Hah. Well, Neil, I'm glad we are focusing on the important topics of the evening [friendly laughter and applause].

"You know, back in September, my friend Donald said he'd had his lawyers look at this from every which way and there was no issue there. There was nothing to this birther issue [friendly laughter and applause].

"Now, since September the Constitution hasn't changed [friendly laughter and applause and guffaws] but the poll numbers have [friendly and loud voices and applause]. And, I recognize, I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa.

My Comment:

Sen. Cruz, as you know, the U.S. Constitution is the foundation of the eligibility issue, specifically the issue of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship versus ALSO or ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship, so, yes, Sen. Cruz, dittos to "focusing on the important topics."

Sen. Cruz, in your response to Neil Cavuto that was directed at Donald Trump and not directed to any of the other candidates who are definitely natural born citizen, and also not directed at Sen. Rubio who also is not a natural born citizen, why is it that Article II Section 1 clause 5 (A2S1c5 — "...natural born Citizen, or a Citizen...at the time...") of the U.S. Constitution definitely was NOT your point of focus in your response at the sixth GOP debate or in your stump speeches?

If A2S1c5 implied ALSO or ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship, you would probably refer to dual citizenshp as the essence, the original genesis original intent essence of clause 5, specifically the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" and the word"eligible." Right?

Yes, Sen. Cruz, "the Constitution hasn't changed" since September 2015 when Donald Trump said there was noting to the "birther issue" except that he changed his mind. It also has not changed since September 17, 1787 when the original birthers, the framers adopted and the ratifiers ratified, the language of A2S1c5 that original birther George Washington recommended to the convention delegates, also original birthers, after receiving a note from original birther John Jay written on July 25, 1787 about protecting the integrity of the executive office from usurpation.

In his note original birther John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" with the obvious implication, in fact the ONLY implication, that the ONLY "citizen" eligible to be commander of the U.S. military and to occupy the executive offce would have ONLY, by birth, singular U.S. citizenship — ONLY, by birth, on U.S. soil/jurisdiction — ONLY, by birth, two U.S. citizen married parents.

_ ONLY, by birth, singular U.S. citizenship
_ ONLY, by birth, on U.S. soil/jurisdiction
_ ONLY, by birth, two U.S. citizen married parents

Sen. Cruz, if you do not agree that original birther John Jay did NOT imply ONLY singular U.S. citizenship then you MUST believe that Jay implied either ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship or Jay implied ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

Sen. Cruz, if you assert that Jay meant ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship your are admitting that Jay could have implied ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

Sen. Cruz, since you and "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers can not admit that John Jay implied "ONLY" singular U.S. citizenship when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," and since you also can not admit that John Jay implied "ALSO" dual U.S./foreign citizenship when he underlined the word "born," the burden of proof is on you to adduce the historical record debating the meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen" in clause 5 as having the original genesis original intent meaning of "ONLY" dual U.S./foreign citizenship, U.S. soil birth OR foreign soil birth with ONLY one U.S. citizen parent.

Sen. Cruz, the burden of proof is on persons born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent married to a foreign citizen parent to adduce the debates in the historical records in which John Jay's "born" implication in his "natural born Citizen" suggestion was discussed and accepted without disagreement as implying "ONLY" dual U.S./foreign citizenship (U.S. soil birth OR foreign soil birth with ONLY one U.S. citizen parent) as superior to "ALSO" dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent married to one foreign citizen oarent, and as ALSO superior to "ONLY" by birth singular U.S. citizenship, "ONLY" by birth on U.S. soil, "ONLY" by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Sen. Cruz, where is the record that the framers and the ratifiers debated the acceptance of ALSO dual or ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship for POTUS eligibility vs. ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for POTUS eligibility?

Sen. Cruz, the burden of proof is on the ALSO or ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship proponents.

Sen. Cruz, you need to adduce discussion by the framers and ratifiers about the common sense or lack of common sense of accepting dual U.S./foreign citizenship for eligibility to be president.

Sen. Cruz, it is not possible to adduce discussion about dual U.S./foreign citizenship because the framers and ratifiers did NOT discuss dual citizenship.

Sen. Cruz, the framers and ratifiers also did NOT discuss singular U.S. citizenship.

Sen. Cruz, the framers and ratifiers did NOT discuss EITHER singualr U.S. citizenship OR dual U.S./foreign citizneship.

Sen. Cruz, the framers and ratifiers did NOT discuss the good sense of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship versus the nonsense of ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

Sen. Cruz, the framers and ratifiers did NOT discuss the good sense of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship versus the nonsense of ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

Sen. Cruz, the framers and ratifiers did NOT discuss anything other than the good sense of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship that was implicit in the word "born" that John Jay underlined in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington.

Sen. Cruz, John Jay's implicit original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" is simple to state and simple to understand:

_ ONLY, by birth, singular U.S. citizenship
_ ONLY, by birth, U.S. soil/jurisdiction
_ ONLY, by birth, two U.S. citizen married parents

Sen. Cruz, the implicit original genesis original intent inherent in the explicit text of Article II Section 1 clause 5 is also simple to state and simple to understand:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen,
or a Citizen of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the Office of President;
neither shall any person be eligible to that Office
who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident
within the United States.

  1. No Person except a natural born Citizen
  2. or a Citizen of the United States
  3. at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
  4. shall be eligible to the Office of President
  5. neither shall any person be eligible to that Office
  6. who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years
  7. and been fourteen Years a Resident
  8. within the United States

1. No Person except a natural born Citizen
The "natural born Citizen" is just like a "citizen" except for being unique among citizens, aka exceptional.

All children are by "nature" natural when born, but only a child born to two U.S. citizen married parents is a "natural born Citizen" who has derived singular U.S. citizenship from two married parents who are both U.S. citizens.

Singular U.S. citizenship "by" birth is what makes a "natural born Citizen" exceptional, aka more than just a "citizen" "at" birth "by" statute or later in life "by" oath according to statute, aka "by" statute.

A singular U.S. citizenship "natural born Citizen" "by" birth is exceptional compared to a dual U.S./foreign citizenship "citizen" "at" birth by statute and later in life "by" oath according to statute, "by" statute.

2. or a Citizen of the United States
The "or a Citizen" of #2 is diffrent and distinct from the "natural born Citizen" of #1.

3. at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
The words "at the time" are no longer applicable to POTUS eligibility since the last 1787 "or a Citizen" died sometime in the 1800s.

4. shall be eligible to the Office of President
The words "be eligible" apply from generation to generation, election to election, ONLY to ALL federal U.S. Presidents, never to federal U.S. Representatives or federal U.S. Senators who are covered with Article I Section 2 and Article 1 Section 3.

5. neither shall any person be eligible to that Office
The "neither" reference is obviously a continuation of the "original genesis original intent" of the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" as it refers to eligibility.

6. who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years
The "thirty five Years" is "from" birth "by" birth, not "from" birth "at" birth that is only possible "by" statute "by" oath.

7. and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States
The residency requirement "been fourteen Years" obbviously can NOT refer to ONLY the first 14 years of residency or to ALSO sporadic years of residency inside AND outside the U.S. up to and including age 35. The word "been" can refer to ONLY the LAST 14 years of residency up to and including age 35.

8. within the United States
Also, the tacit implication is that after the minimum age of 35 is attained, residency "within" the U.S. must include ONLY the last 14 years up to and including whateve the age is (36 or more) of the person who is being inaugurated president.

Sen. Cruz:
But, the facts and the law here are really quite clear. Under longstanding U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad [ed. the child is the one born abroad] is a natural born citizen.

If a soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural born citizen. That's why John McCain, even though he was born in Panama, was eligible to run for president.

If an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural born citizen. That's why George Romney, Mitt's dad, was eligible to run for president even though he was born in Mexico.

At the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward. But, I would note the birther theories that Donald has been relying on. Some of the more extreme ones insist you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil.

Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified, but interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified [friendly loud and long laughter and applause].

My Comment:

Sen. Cruz, you know that the "longstanding U.S. law" that you are referring to is ONLY the 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen" language which was repealed and replaced with the 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" language.

The specific language of the 1790 NA said:
"And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: ...."

The specific language of the 1795 NA said:
Section 3
And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:

My Amplification of the 1790 NA:
"And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within [within] the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization

[naturalization of the father and, under the 1790s doctrine of "coverture" which covered the wife until changed by statutes of Congress in the 1800s and 1900s, under the doctrine of "coverture," the mother of the child, by marriage, acquired the U.S. citizneship of her naturalized husband, and by extension, the child acquired the U.S. citizenship of both the naturalized father and mother],

"shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

"And
[the 1790 NA children are "condidered" as different, statute "citizen" OR statute "natural born Citizen"]

"the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out [out] of the limits of the United States,

"shall be considered as natural born citizens: ...."

My Amplification of the 1795 NA:
"And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within [within] the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization;

"and
[the 1795 NA children are BOTH "considered" the same, statute "citizens"]

"the children of citizens of the United States, born out [out] of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,

"shall be considered as citizens of the United States: ...."

A Brief Analysis of the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts:

Notice that in both the 1790 NA and the 1795 NA, "considered" is positive law (statute) language of Congress, positive law language, not birth language, not natural law language.

In the 1790 NA, the child born between 1790 and 1795 within the United States BEFORE the father, and by the doctrine of "coverture" the mother, naturalized, the child, AFTER the father naturalized as a U.S. citizen, the child was by the 1790 and the 1795 positive law (statute) "considered" to be a U.S. "citizen" under the doctrine of coverture until reaching age 21, AND the child "born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States" between 1790 and 1795, AFTER the U.S. citizen parents were already residing on foreign soil were, the child was "considered" to be a "natural born Citizen."

The 1795 third Congress repealed the 1790 first Congress by removing the "natural born Citizen" language and replacing it with the "citizen" language.

Sen. Cruz, the 1795 NA "citizen" designation has been the consistent language of ALL statutes of Congress from 1795 to 2016.

Sen. Cruz:
If a soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural born citizen. That's why John McCain, even though he was born in Panama, was eligible to run for president.

My Comment:

Sen. Cruz, as you know, when married diplomats and married military personnel, for example, a military spouse and the civilian spouse, are sent on assignment by the U.S. government to reside on foreign soil and jurisdiction, the child who may be born outside of the U.S. is, by "by" natural law birth (nature), NOT by positive law (statute), the child is NOT "considered" to be a natural born citizen, the child IS "by" birth a natural born citizen, because the parents, plural, are both U.S. citizens on official U.S. government assignment under U.S. jurisdiction, just as if they were assigned to any city within the United States. That was the official status of Sen. John McCain. The resolution by the U.S. Senate "declaring" that Sen. McCain was a natural born citizen was not necessary and it was meaningless to his "natural born Citizen" status "from" and "by" birth to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Sen. Cruz:
If an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural born citizen. That's why George Romney, Mitt's dad, was eligible to run for president even though he was born in Mexico.

My Comment:

Sen. Cruz, as you know, according to American statutes since the 1795 Naturalization Act up to and including the 1952 Immigration and Nationalict Act, when any U.S. citizens, two U.S. citizen married parents or one U.S. citizen parent, residing abroad has a child, the child is, since 1795 up to and including 2016, a "citizen" of the U.S., not a "natural born Citizen" of the U.S.

Sen. Cruz:
At the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward.

My Comment:

Sen. Cruz, as you know, "[a]t the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward": a U.S. citizen with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship does not need to renounce foreign citizenship as you did when you renounced your Canadian citizenship in 2014.

Sen. Cruz:
But, I would note the birther theories that Donald has been relying on. Some of the more extreme ones insist you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil.

My Comment:

Sen. Cruz, why did you mention only the "extreme" theory? Why not mention the A2S1c5 common sense original intent?

Sen. Cruz, as you know, the "extreme" birther theory that you adduced has never, ever been espoused by any informed or uninformed constitutional scholar. In fact, by adducing the "have two parents born on U.S. soil" example your are covering up something important. You are telling us what the meaning of "natural born Citizen" is NOT but your "extreme" example is NOT telling us what the meaning of "natural born Citizen" IS.

That is obfuscation.

Sen. Cruz, by citing the "extreme" example you can avoid referring to the original genesis original intent meaning of "natural born Ctizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5.

That is obfuscation.

Sen. Cruz, by saying that "you must not only be born on U.S. soil" but the child "must" be born to "two parents born on U.S. soil" with the tacit implication that birth on U.S. soil is NOT the original genesis original intent meaning of the word "born" in "natural born Ctizen" is itself "extreme" mythology.

That "extreme" mythology is "extreme" obfuscation.

Sen. Cruz, the "have two parents born on U.S. soil" language is itself extreme.

That is "extreme" obfuscation.

Sen. Cruz:
Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified, but interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified [friendly loud and long laughter and applause].

My Comment:

Sen. Cruz, under your "extreme" and mythological theory that a child "must not only be born on U.S. soil" but must ALSO be born to "two parents born on U.S. soil" for the child to be qualified to be "... eligible to the Office of President," it makes it convenient for you to not need to mention citizenship at all because the inclusion of citizenship into your "extreme" example would change the direction of discussion.

According to A2S1c5 common sense, when both parents are naturalized U.S. citizens BEFORE their child is born on U.S. soil then that child, born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents, either born or naturalized as U.S. citizens before the child is born on U.S. soil, is an A2S1c5 "natural born Citizen" who is qualified and "...eligible to the Office of President."

It is "extreme" obfuscation to NOT mention that birth to two naturalized U.S. citizen parents who were not born on U.S. soil, or birth to one U.S. citizen parent born on U.S. soil married to a naturalized U.S. citizen parent who was not born on U.S. soil, makes a child a "natural born Citizen" for a common sense reason. Absolutely no informed or uninformed constitutional scholoar, absolutely nobody would assert that two U.S. citizen married parents, EITHER both born as U.S. citizens OR both naturalized as U.S. citizens, are NOT sufficient for a child to be a "natural born Citizen."

Under A2S1c5 common sense, Donald Trump would quality, but you Sen. Cruz, and Sen. Rubio and Gov. Jindal would "be disqualified."

If it is truly "extreme" that two married parents need to be born on U.S. soil before their child is born on U.S. soil for the child to be qualified and "... eligible to the Office of President," what wuoud you say is the correct position that is NOT "extreme" for eligibility? If two U.S. citizen parents must be born on U.S. soil is "extreme" to you, what is NOT "extreme" to you? Is only one U.S. citizen parent must be born on U.S. soil "extreme" to you? Is zero parents need to be born on U.S. soil "extreme" to you?

How about this common sense position.

Sen. Cruz, John Jay's implicit original genesis original intent meaning in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington is simple to state and simple to understand:

_ ONLY, by birth, singular U.S. citizenship
_ ONLY, by birth, U.S. soil/jurisdiction
_ ONLY, by birth, two U.S. citizen married parents

Sen. Cruz:
Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified, but interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified.

Donald Trump:
Not me.

Cruz:
Because, because Donald's mother was born in Scotland, she was naturalized.

Now, Donald.

Trump:
But I was born here.

Cruz:
On the issue of citizenship, Donald.

Trump:
A big difference.

Cruz:
On the issue of citizenship, Donald, I'm not going to use your mother's birth against you.

Trump:
Good, because it wouldn't work.

My Comment:

Donald Trump should have responded byt saying that "it wouldn't work" because he was born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents, one parent who was born on U.S. soil as a U.S. citizen and one parent who naturalized on U.S. soil as a U.S. citizen before he was born, and that Sen. Cruz was born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent and one foreign citizen parent who didn't naturalize before his son was born of foreign soil.

THAT is why using Trump's "mother's birth against" him "wouldn't work" against Trump but that Trump using Sen. Cruz's father's birth against Sen. Cruz would work against Sen. Cruz.

Sen. Cruz qualifies as a "citizen" because dual U.S./foreign citizenship "at" birth (by statute) on U.S. soil or "at" birth (by statute) on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent makes a child a U.S. "citizen" "by" positive law (statute), not "by" natural law birth (nature).

Donald Trump qualifies as a "natural born Citizen" because ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "by" birth, ONLY "by" birth on U.S. soil, ONLY "by" birth to two U.S. citizen married parents makes Article II Section 1 clause 5 common sense.

_ ONLY, by birth, singular U.S. citizenship
_ ONLY, by birth, U.S. soil/jurisdiction
_ ONLY, by birth, two U.S. citizen married parents

Cruz:
You're an American as is everybody else on this stage, and I would suggest we focus on whose best prepared to be Commander-in-Chief, because that's the most important question facing the country.

My Comment:

Donald Trump should have responded by saying that he IS focusing on "the most important question facing the country":

Who is a better defender of the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II Section 1 clause 5, the "natural born Citizen" clause, that is constitutionally qualified to be Commander-in-Chief? A person born with ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship and who needs to renounce the foreign citizenship, or a person born with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship who does not need to renounce anything?

Original birther John Jay and original birther George Washington and the original birther framers and the original birther ratifiers wrould probably concur with the simple words describing the original genesis original intent of the September 17, 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 common sense:

_ ONLY, by birth, singular U.S. citizenship
_ ONLY, by birth, U.S. soil/jurisdiction
_ ONLY, by birth, two U.S. citizen married parents

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com